Slashdot Mirror
Global File System (GFS) Relicensed under SPL
thk writes "Sistina, the main developer of the Global File System, has changed its license from GPL to SPL (Sistina Public License). SPL is basically a free-for-non-profit-use license. Interestingly, the change came just after beta testing, leaving some users a bit miffed. The GFS is an important component of some GPL clustering projects, such as Compaq's SSIC project. The Sistina press release is here."
You beat me too it. But this deserves some commentary anyway.
Manufacturers who think that they can pull this sort of trick and get away with it even if they are not challenged in court have the wool pulled over their eyes. All the OSS community has to do is go back to the last OSS release and work from there. Don't license your stuff under OSS licenses if you want to sell it because you will be undersold. Instead use proprietary licenses from the beginning.
If you want to be an OSS company, stick to those guns too. Focus on services, not products, and make your operation work! Why is this so hard to understand?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
yes you can fork it
.......... right
how much work will get done it and which version will people ship their products with ?
my guess is someone will tinker with it (the GPL version)
then the sinistra version will gain features that people want so they will use that one and wont care about the licence
its funny you all thought that you could make money from IPO or something like that
sinistra thinks that its products will be used in some grand scheme and they wont get a cent because they published under GPL
come on what matters is customers !!!
the customer is
most software is written at the behest of a customer, has sinistra got ANY ?
yes belive it or not they would get funded I am sure from IBM/Compaq SUN any large hardware seller beacuse software is complementry to hardware
the problem is that these people thought that they would get rich like the VA linux, the Redhat and the Caldera
that time is over and now they learn that they are giveing away stuff and have no customers no sponsors and well they had nice jobs at the uni and now they ask themselves "why did we do this wheres all my work going ?"
and they see the GPL as preventing people from paying them
really
go out and find money research grants sponsors and guvemenst are tripping over themselevs trying to give away money for good causes why dont you try for these ?
regards
john jones
Can I second that? To trumpet my old example of id software.
They released QuakeI under the GPL but since they own it they can resell it to anyone they want for as much as they want, period.
When you author something in a transmittable medium it becomes copyrighted etc.
Just like VA taking source forge and selling it to other sources. They are legally allowed to do this because they own the product. People are friggin spazzing out that it is illegal because they contributed to the source forge code base. Well guess what, if I contributed too any open source project I can't instantly expect the ownership of it to no longer be the original authors because I gave him a piece of code. As with sourceforge VA owns the copyright on the work, when you contribute it becomes copyright VA, you don't own any of the contributions, VA does. PERIOD. If this ever went to court the results would be very predictable.
Anyways, enough of that soapbox.
Jeremy
Do you have any idea what GFS is? Or are you just basing your comment on its name. It is most certainly not intended to be an internet file system. It is intended to be a very high performance filesystem for clusters and linux supercomputers. It doesn't even work with IDE harddisk drives. If your are dumb enough to not firewall or completely isolate a super computer or cluster then you get what you deserve. Much like NFS, SMB/CIFS, NWFS, and Appletalk filesharing, it is not designed to be used across the internet. It is much better suited for gigabit ethernet, fibrechannel, or Miranet LANs. Runing it across even a T3 would mostly be a waste of the GFS (and your expensive Fibrechanel and SCSCI RAID systems).
NOTE/DISCLAIMER:
I used to work for Dr. O'Keefe (the CTO and founder of Sistina) when I was a student at the University of MN. I did not work on the GFS project, and had little contact with it, as it had mostly become Sistina at that point and had it's own offices outside of the Univesity.
I worked on the Secure Filesystem Project which was financed soley by StorageTek.
My opinions do not reflect those of Sistina, the UofMN, or StorageTek.
They just changed their license on THEIR OWN code.
The patches from the contributors are not their code.
---
If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music.
While the AFPL is a non-DFSG license designed in large part to support an OEM licensing business, it also has three important freedoms that appear to be missing from the SPL:
1. Fork rights. You are perfectly free to take AFPL code, make your own modifications, and release that code under the AFPL. This distinguishes the AFPL from most other "almost free" licenses.
2. Commercial use. AFPL code is free for commercial use. An example is ps2pdf.com, which is an advertiser supported site using AFPL Ghostscript.
3. No grantback. If you make custom modifications for in-house use, you are not obligated to grant those modifications to the original author. Further, if you release a forked version under the AFPL, you are not obligated to license that code back to the original author so they can OEM license it.
In my opinion, the only significant right lacking from the AFPL is commercial redistribution without compensation. While people obviously disagree with this, my personal opinion is that it is not anywhere nearly as important as the other free software rights, especially now that free distribution over the Internet is ubiquitous. I frankly don't see why it's so important for Red Hat to make money from selling our code without compensating us in any way for our work.
Ghostscript has a fourth freedom guarantee, which is that major AFPL releases are re-released under the GPL a year later. Thus, the extra rights granted to us as commercial Ghostscript developers is fairly small and definitely time-limited. As long as we continue to improve Ghostscript actively, the AFPL version is valuable. As soon as we stop doing our job, it falls into the hands of the community.
The lack of funding for core development is a serious pragmatic weakness of the free software movement. Peter Deutsch, with Ghostscript and the AFPL license he authored, made a very good attempt to address that problem, and it's actually been working out pretty well for us.
Even so, freedom is very important to the Ghostscript project. Thus, I feel called to respond to comparisons between less-free licensing arrangements and Ghostscript.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
I'm working on merging the last GPL version of GFS into the FOLK patch series. I've already merged the Gwsecurity kernel stuff (which raised ALL Hell and more besides), and I've asked RMS to rule whether re-use of GPL components in other GPL projects is within the rules of the licence.
Assuming Richard Stallman verifies that re-use of GPL code =is= perfectly legitamate, then GFS will be in the next version. (Grsecurity isn't moving ANYWHERE, unless the decision goes the other way.)
The problem, I believe, is that people believe they "own" the code they developed. If you opt for an Open Source or Free Software philosophy, then ownership (which is just Intellectual Property in disguise) ceases to exist.
GFS, kernel security, etc, =WILL= survive, no matter WHAT attitudes these idiots develop.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Disclaimer: IANAL...
It seems under the GPL you have a few options to actually make a bit of money in the distribution of the source, if you so wish. Let me outline the basics of what the GPL says in regards to this (and please, don't trust this or me, read the GPL first, instead):
1. If you distribute the source code only, "you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee" (from the GPL, section 1).
2. If you distribute the code "in object code or executable form" (from the GPL, section 3), you must:
"a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" (from the GPL, section 3)
OR,
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange." (from the GPL, section 3)
There is also a subsection "c" to section 3, but it isn't of interest to this discussion, since "This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution". (from the GPL, section 3)
So, it seems you must provide the source, in a machine-readable format, on a medium customarily used for software interchange.
Since "customarily" doesn't have any definition in the scope of this license (in fact, the word only appears twice), unless it has specific legal means (which it may, IANAL), then in theory, you could output the code on punch cards, for all the license cares!
But let us say that "customarily" alludes to the time of distribution - that is, the source code must be on a medium "of the times" - for today, that could be an FTP site, a web site - or a floppy, or CD-ROM.
You just have to provide access - it doesn't say you "must make it downloadable to the world" - just that if someone comes calling for it, you must provide it to them, on a medium "customarily" used for software interchange. So if you only wanted to distribute CD-ROMs - that would be PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH THE LICENSE.
Plus you may charge a fee for making this copy. This fee is never specified, or enumerated, within the GPL, other than to say "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution" (from the GPL, section 3).
Now, who is to say that it doesn't cost you $100.00 (US) to create that copy? How much is you or your company's time worth? Maybe the fee might be $500.00 for the source. There is nothing in the GPL to prohibit this.
So, let's say you are selling your office productivity suite of software to Joe and Jane Public. You sell it for $50.00 (thereby undercutting the competition). In the package, on a paper license agreement (and maybe a clickthrough), you state you will provide the source code to any individual or company, for the product, via CD-ROM through the mail, for a fee of only $500.00, should they request so within 3 years from the time of purchase (require a receipt to prove time-frame). Furthermore, state someplace that the software will only receive support if purchased from you, otherwise the purchaser is "on his own" for support.
Should Joe or Jane Public see this, most of them will simply shrug their shoulders, and continue to play with great software. Those that do pay would probably be reluctant to simply give the code away (though they could, and your company could do nothing about it!). Those looking for a free version of the product might be able to get it, but Joe and Jane Public are unlikely to use it, since there wouldn't be any support from your company.
A company that might pay in order to have the source to correct flaws in the software (and hopefully give you or the community back those corrections), probably wouldn't distribute the code for free, or a fee - since anyone downloading it wouldn't be able to get support, other than from the secondary distributor, at best - and most companies would want to avoid that headache. However, those that wanted to could make a better version, and distribute it and provide support, if they want - that would be the purchaser's decision, once more.
There is the business plan and rational to sell Free, GPL'd software. The code still gets out, mods could still be made and re-incorporated back into the base product, you will probably make money off of it, and should your company go under or something, the code will still exist, for others to continue on with.
Now, once again, I am not a lawyer, but I don't see where any of this would violate the GPL - indeed, the GPL seems to allow this. So why hasn't any company done this?
Actually, in a way, they have: RedHat is the perfect example.
This is a company that sells a GPL'd product. Companies and individuals are willing to buy it, and RedHat provides support. The source code is out there, and a few other companies have rolled their own distros to compete with RedHat (Mandrake), using the base RedHat distro.
But RedHat made one mistake - they provided source with their distribution, and via FTP - for anyone at anytime to download. What would their company be doing now if they had only provided source via CD-ROM through mail, on request, for a fee? Who knows - maybe it wouldn't have worked, and everyone would be using Debian or Slackware more.
Maybe this method could only be used for software packages. Games could easily be done this way, and I would think that a lot of money could be made, and the GPL wouldn't be violated.
If I am wrong about all of this, please, somebody (especially lawyers!) point out the flaws in my argument. It would be interesting to see what I missed, etc...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon